Lily Salter's Blog, page 943
November 25, 2015
12 best dinner table scenes on film: From the Griswolds to the Deetzes, here are Hollywood’s most memorable meals
When my family gets together for Thanksgiving, my twin and I always race to quote our favorite line from “Night Shift”: “Turkey’s almost dead!” It’s as much a ritual as carving the bird. As families gather around the table this holiday season, films that depict dinner scenes always come to mind. Sure there are some great dysfunctional family Thanksgiving comedies, from “Pieces of April” to “Home for the Holidays,” but even non-holiday-meal films are invoked. Consider in the awkward social comedy “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” or the broader farce, “Meet the Parents,” about meeting one’s partner’s parents for the first time. Many films use dinner table scenes to inform audiences of the relationships between characters—note how the table in “Citizen Kane” gets longer as the couple gets more estranged, or how truly unsettling the meal is in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” Here (in alphabetical order) are a dozen classic cinematic dinner table scenes featuring various celebrations. Oh, and another word of advice from my twin and me and a classic comedy: Don’t be late to dinner or we’ll quote Nurse Diesel (Cloris Leachman) from “High Anxiety,” who insists, “Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup!” “American Beauty” Sam Mendes’ film may not deserve the Oscar it won for Best Picture, but it does feature a fantastic dinner table scene. Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey in an Oscar-winning performance) announces to his daughter Jane (Thora Birch) that he quit his job. His wife Carolyn (Annette Bening) gets riled up by this news, and the burden of having to be the family’s sole breadwinner. But her rage is nothing compared to Lester’s delicious outburst when he simply wants someone to please pass him the fucking asparagus. And don’t interrupt Lester, either. “Annie Hall” Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) visits his titular girlfriend’s family for Easter dinner in this classic Best Picture-winning comedy. From the "dynamite ham" served to Grammy Hall, looking at Alvy as if he were a Hasidim, Alvy is in disbelief. He even stops the meal to directly address the audience and illustrate the differences between the Singer family and the Halls. It’s a hilarious split screen comparison: her family’s table talk concerns swap meets; his parents boisterously discuss diabetes. “Annie Hall” is the ne plus ultra of gefilte-fish-out-of-water dinners. “Avalon” Barry Levinson’s knowing drama about a Polish-Jewish family in Baltimore features a fantastic Thanksgiving dinner scene. At one point, a young boy being served his meal complains about the food touching on the plate. It is a scene out of every household during the holidays. But the real drama begins when Gabriel Krichinsky (Lou Jacobi) arrives late to dinner and storms out screaming, “You cut the turkey without me!” While others acknowledge Gabriel does this routine every year, the scene shows just how high-strung families can get. Levinson actually goes this scene one better later in “Avalon,” as when a camera pan shows the family eating in front of the TV rather than congregating in the living room, a sign of how detached families have becomes over the years. “Babette’s Feast” The exquisite feast served in this exquisite Danish film (which won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film) consists of turtle soup, stuffed quail in puff pastry (“cailles en sarcophage”), and other delicacies. The food is washed down with Clos de Vougeot 1845 and Vueve Cliquot 1860. Babette (Stéphane Audran) spends 10,000 francs she won in a lottery on “a real French dinner,” recreating a meal fro 12 from the Cafí Anglais. But the irony is that her cooking is only truly appreciated by one guest, General Löwenhielm (Jarle Kulle). While the meal does have a transformative effect on all of the diners, it also shows the sacrifice Babette makes to please the Danish sisters who took her in, and ultimately, Babette’s joy in serving such a unique and fabulous meal. “Beetlejuice” If you are going to have a dinner party, you'd better makes sure there are no ghosts in the house making mischief. When host Delia Deetz (Catherine O’Hara) unexpectedly interrupts her meal to break out into a spirited version of “The Banana Boat Song,” everyone eventually joins in. One guest even uses the ice bucket as a bongo. While their singing at the table may be what causes the food in “Beetlejuice” to act out and attack the dinner guests, if there are ghosts in the house, rebellious food is likely the lesser problem. “The Celebration” While most family celebrations are happy occasions, this lacerating Danish film, shot in the Dogme style, about Helge’s (Henning Moritzen) 60th birthday party, shows just how unhappy families can be. Eldest son Christian (Ulrich Thomsen) delivers a doozy of a toast, full of “home truths,” that shocks everyone. Sure, the anecdote about how he and his late sister Linda would put things in people’s food without their noticing is amusing, but the bit about dad taking baths and then taking Linda and Christain into his study to sexually abuse and rape them might just put folks off their meal. “The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover” Peter Greenaway delivers the ultimate “theme” restaurant as the characters’ clothes in this visually opulent film change to match the color of the room they are in. (Red in the dining room, white in the bathroom, etc.) The story of adultery, murder, gluttony and revenge concerns a nasty gangster, Albert Spica (Michael Gambon), his cheating wife Georgina (Helen Mirren), her unfortunate lover Michael (Alan Howard), and the cook, Richard (Richard Bohringer) who prepares their meal(s). The film famously ends with—and perhaps earned its NC-17 rating for—a scene in which Richard serves Albert Michael’s dead body, and Georgina encourages him to eat the corpse’s cooked cock. Getting his just desserts, Albert is called a cannibal. “Eat Drink Man Woman” Ang Lee’s mouth-watering opening scene of a meal being prepared sets the appropriate tone for this poignant film about Master Chef Chu (Sihung Lung) and his three grown daughters. The family gathers around the table for dinner every Sunday. Whenever they get together, however, someone always seems to have an announcement that causes everyone else to go into a tailspin. In one of the film’s most ironic scenes, Chu, whose taste buds are failing, prepares a gorgeous meal that everyone refuses to eat. “Eraserhead” The chicken dinner in David Lynch’s deadpan debut is truly memorable. There is a strange conversation about a numb arm, and the chicken’s animated response to being cut up is that cooked birds fidget and bleed. The bizarre behavior by one of the other guests at the table prompts the comment, “She’ll be alright in a minute.” But will she, really? Lynch prepares a real surreal meal. “Like Water for Chocolate” Proving the magic properties of food, this romantic Mexican film uses magical realism and a dish of quail with rose petals to cause Pedro (Marco Leonardi) and Tita (Lumi Cavazos) to fall passionately in love. The alchemical phenomenon of Tita’s blood that permeates the sauce “invades” Pedro’s body in a sensual way. “The nectar of the gods!” Pedro exclaims at dinner, feeling passionate. However, Tita’s disapproving mother (Regina Torné) thinks the dish is much too salty. “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” It’s a sure thing that things will go badly for the Griswolds, but the film’s Christmas dinner table scene is pretty funny. Not only does Aunt Bethany (Mae Questel) have an interesting interpretation of saying grace, but the turkey is so dry it deflates. (The extended family politely chokes it down anyway.) There are other awkward moments involving Uncle Eddie (Randy Quaid) or the family pets, which are either really amusing or really disgusting, depending on one’s taste. “Tom Jones” This adaptation of Henry Fielding’s picaresque novel features one of the most famous eating scenes in all of movie history. When Tom (Albert Finney) and Mrs. Waters (Joyce Redman) share a meal, they practically seduce each other at the table. Director Tony Richardson conveys all the erotic properties of food as Finney looks lustily at both his meal and his dining companion while they ravish a chicken leg and each other. “Tom Jones” proves that slurping an oyster is ideal foreplay. The characters don’t say a word to one another, but their body language and their hungry tongues express it all.When my family gets together for Thanksgiving, my twin and I always race to quote our favorite line from “Night Shift”: “Turkey’s almost dead!” It’s as much a ritual as carving the bird. As families gather around the table this holiday season, films that depict dinner scenes always come to mind. Sure there are some great dysfunctional family Thanksgiving comedies, from “Pieces of April” to “Home for the Holidays,” but even non-holiday-meal films are invoked. Consider in the awkward social comedy “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” or the broader farce, “Meet the Parents,” about meeting one’s partner’s parents for the first time. Many films use dinner table scenes to inform audiences of the relationships between characters—note how the table in “Citizen Kane” gets longer as the couple gets more estranged, or how truly unsettling the meal is in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” Here (in alphabetical order) are a dozen classic cinematic dinner table scenes featuring various celebrations. Oh, and another word of advice from my twin and me and a classic comedy: Don’t be late to dinner or we’ll quote Nurse Diesel (Cloris Leachman) from “High Anxiety,” who insists, “Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup!” “American Beauty” Sam Mendes’ film may not deserve the Oscar it won for Best Picture, but it does feature a fantastic dinner table scene. Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey in an Oscar-winning performance) announces to his daughter Jane (Thora Birch) that he quit his job. His wife Carolyn (Annette Bening) gets riled up by this news, and the burden of having to be the family’s sole breadwinner. But her rage is nothing compared to Lester’s delicious outburst when he simply wants someone to please pass him the fucking asparagus. And don’t interrupt Lester, either. “Annie Hall” Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) visits his titular girlfriend’s family for Easter dinner in this classic Best Picture-winning comedy. From the "dynamite ham" served to Grammy Hall, looking at Alvy as if he were a Hasidim, Alvy is in disbelief. He even stops the meal to directly address the audience and illustrate the differences between the Singer family and the Halls. It’s a hilarious split screen comparison: her family’s table talk concerns swap meets; his parents boisterously discuss diabetes. “Annie Hall” is the ne plus ultra of gefilte-fish-out-of-water dinners. “Avalon” Barry Levinson’s knowing drama about a Polish-Jewish family in Baltimore features a fantastic Thanksgiving dinner scene. At one point, a young boy being served his meal complains about the food touching on the plate. It is a scene out of every household during the holidays. But the real drama begins when Gabriel Krichinsky (Lou Jacobi) arrives late to dinner and storms out screaming, “You cut the turkey without me!” While others acknowledge Gabriel does this routine every year, the scene shows just how high-strung families can get. Levinson actually goes this scene one better later in “Avalon,” as when a camera pan shows the family eating in front of the TV rather than congregating in the living room, a sign of how detached families have becomes over the years. “Babette’s Feast” The exquisite feast served in this exquisite Danish film (which won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film) consists of turtle soup, stuffed quail in puff pastry (“cailles en sarcophage”), and other delicacies. The food is washed down with Clos de Vougeot 1845 and Vueve Cliquot 1860. Babette (Stéphane Audran) spends 10,000 francs she won in a lottery on “a real French dinner,” recreating a meal fro 12 from the Cafí Anglais. But the irony is that her cooking is only truly appreciated by one guest, General Löwenhielm (Jarle Kulle). While the meal does have a transformative effect on all of the diners, it also shows the sacrifice Babette makes to please the Danish sisters who took her in, and ultimately, Babette’s joy in serving such a unique and fabulous meal. “Beetlejuice” If you are going to have a dinner party, you'd better makes sure there are no ghosts in the house making mischief. When host Delia Deetz (Catherine O’Hara) unexpectedly interrupts her meal to break out into a spirited version of “The Banana Boat Song,” everyone eventually joins in. One guest even uses the ice bucket as a bongo. While their singing at the table may be what causes the food in “Beetlejuice” to act out and attack the dinner guests, if there are ghosts in the house, rebellious food is likely the lesser problem. “The Celebration” While most family celebrations are happy occasions, this lacerating Danish film, shot in the Dogme style, about Helge’s (Henning Moritzen) 60th birthday party, shows just how unhappy families can be. Eldest son Christian (Ulrich Thomsen) delivers a doozy of a toast, full of “home truths,” that shocks everyone. Sure, the anecdote about how he and his late sister Linda would put things in people’s food without their noticing is amusing, but the bit about dad taking baths and then taking Linda and Christain into his study to sexually abuse and rape them might just put folks off their meal. “The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover” Peter Greenaway delivers the ultimate “theme” restaurant as the characters’ clothes in this visually opulent film change to match the color of the room they are in. (Red in the dining room, white in the bathroom, etc.) The story of adultery, murder, gluttony and revenge concerns a nasty gangster, Albert Spica (Michael Gambon), his cheating wife Georgina (Helen Mirren), her unfortunate lover Michael (Alan Howard), and the cook, Richard (Richard Bohringer) who prepares their meal(s). The film famously ends with—and perhaps earned its NC-17 rating for—a scene in which Richard serves Albert Michael’s dead body, and Georgina encourages him to eat the corpse’s cooked cock. Getting his just desserts, Albert is called a cannibal. “Eat Drink Man Woman” Ang Lee’s mouth-watering opening scene of a meal being prepared sets the appropriate tone for this poignant film about Master Chef Chu (Sihung Lung) and his three grown daughters. The family gathers around the table for dinner every Sunday. Whenever they get together, however, someone always seems to have an announcement that causes everyone else to go into a tailspin. In one of the film’s most ironic scenes, Chu, whose taste buds are failing, prepares a gorgeous meal that everyone refuses to eat. “Eraserhead” The chicken dinner in David Lynch’s deadpan debut is truly memorable. There is a strange conversation about a numb arm, and the chicken’s animated response to being cut up is that cooked birds fidget and bleed. The bizarre behavior by one of the other guests at the table prompts the comment, “She’ll be alright in a minute.” But will she, really? Lynch prepares a real surreal meal. “Like Water for Chocolate” Proving the magic properties of food, this romantic Mexican film uses magical realism and a dish of quail with rose petals to cause Pedro (Marco Leonardi) and Tita (Lumi Cavazos) to fall passionately in love. The alchemical phenomenon of Tita’s blood that permeates the sauce “invades” Pedro’s body in a sensual way. “The nectar of the gods!” Pedro exclaims at dinner, feeling passionate. However, Tita’s disapproving mother (Regina Torné) thinks the dish is much too salty. “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” It’s a sure thing that things will go badly for the Griswolds, but the film’s Christmas dinner table scene is pretty funny. Not only does Aunt Bethany (Mae Questel) have an interesting interpretation of saying grace, but the turkey is so dry it deflates. (The extended family politely chokes it down anyway.) There are other awkward moments involving Uncle Eddie (Randy Quaid) or the family pets, which are either really amusing or really disgusting, depending on one’s taste. “Tom Jones” This adaptation of Henry Fielding’s picaresque novel features one of the most famous eating scenes in all of movie history. When Tom (Albert Finney) and Mrs. Waters (Joyce Redman) share a meal, they practically seduce each other at the table. Director Tony Richardson conveys all the erotic properties of food as Finney looks lustily at both his meal and his dining companion while they ravish a chicken leg and each other. “Tom Jones” proves that slurping an oyster is ideal foreplay. The characters don’t say a word to one another, but their body language and their hungry tongues express it all.When my family gets together for Thanksgiving, my twin and I always race to quote our favorite line from “Night Shift”: “Turkey’s almost dead!” It’s as much a ritual as carving the bird. As families gather around the table this holiday season, films that depict dinner scenes always come to mind. Sure there are some great dysfunctional family Thanksgiving comedies, from “Pieces of April” to “Home for the Holidays,” but even non-holiday-meal films are invoked. Consider in the awkward social comedy “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” or the broader farce, “Meet the Parents,” about meeting one’s partner’s parents for the first time. Many films use dinner table scenes to inform audiences of the relationships between characters—note how the table in “Citizen Kane” gets longer as the couple gets more estranged, or how truly unsettling the meal is in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” Here (in alphabetical order) are a dozen classic cinematic dinner table scenes featuring various celebrations. Oh, and another word of advice from my twin and me and a classic comedy: Don’t be late to dinner or we’ll quote Nurse Diesel (Cloris Leachman) from “High Anxiety,” who insists, “Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup!” “American Beauty” Sam Mendes’ film may not deserve the Oscar it won for Best Picture, but it does feature a fantastic dinner table scene. Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey in an Oscar-winning performance) announces to his daughter Jane (Thora Birch) that he quit his job. His wife Carolyn (Annette Bening) gets riled up by this news, and the burden of having to be the family’s sole breadwinner. But her rage is nothing compared to Lester’s delicious outburst when he simply wants someone to please pass him the fucking asparagus. And don’t interrupt Lester, either. “Annie Hall” Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) visits his titular girlfriend’s family for Easter dinner in this classic Best Picture-winning comedy. From the "dynamite ham" served to Grammy Hall, looking at Alvy as if he were a Hasidim, Alvy is in disbelief. He even stops the meal to directly address the audience and illustrate the differences between the Singer family and the Halls. It’s a hilarious split screen comparison: her family’s table talk concerns swap meets; his parents boisterously discuss diabetes. “Annie Hall” is the ne plus ultra of gefilte-fish-out-of-water dinners. “Avalon” Barry Levinson’s knowing drama about a Polish-Jewish family in Baltimore features a fantastic Thanksgiving dinner scene. At one point, a young boy being served his meal complains about the food touching on the plate. It is a scene out of every household during the holidays. But the real drama begins when Gabriel Krichinsky (Lou Jacobi) arrives late to dinner and storms out screaming, “You cut the turkey without me!” While others acknowledge Gabriel does this routine every year, the scene shows just how high-strung families can get. Levinson actually goes this scene one better later in “Avalon,” as when a camera pan shows the family eating in front of the TV rather than congregating in the living room, a sign of how detached families have becomes over the years. “Babette’s Feast” The exquisite feast served in this exquisite Danish film (which won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film) consists of turtle soup, stuffed quail in puff pastry (“cailles en sarcophage”), and other delicacies. The food is washed down with Clos de Vougeot 1845 and Vueve Cliquot 1860. Babette (Stéphane Audran) spends 10,000 francs she won in a lottery on “a real French dinner,” recreating a meal fro 12 from the Cafí Anglais. But the irony is that her cooking is only truly appreciated by one guest, General Löwenhielm (Jarle Kulle). While the meal does have a transformative effect on all of the diners, it also shows the sacrifice Babette makes to please the Danish sisters who took her in, and ultimately, Babette’s joy in serving such a unique and fabulous meal. “Beetlejuice” If you are going to have a dinner party, you'd better makes sure there are no ghosts in the house making mischief. When host Delia Deetz (Catherine O’Hara) unexpectedly interrupts her meal to break out into a spirited version of “The Banana Boat Song,” everyone eventually joins in. One guest even uses the ice bucket as a bongo. While their singing at the table may be what causes the food in “Beetlejuice” to act out and attack the dinner guests, if there are ghosts in the house, rebellious food is likely the lesser problem. “The Celebration” While most family celebrations are happy occasions, this lacerating Danish film, shot in the Dogme style, about Helge’s (Henning Moritzen) 60th birthday party, shows just how unhappy families can be. Eldest son Christian (Ulrich Thomsen) delivers a doozy of a toast, full of “home truths,” that shocks everyone. Sure, the anecdote about how he and his late sister Linda would put things in people’s food without their noticing is amusing, but the bit about dad taking baths and then taking Linda and Christain into his study to sexually abuse and rape them might just put folks off their meal. “The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover” Peter Greenaway delivers the ultimate “theme” restaurant as the characters’ clothes in this visually opulent film change to match the color of the room they are in. (Red in the dining room, white in the bathroom, etc.) The story of adultery, murder, gluttony and revenge concerns a nasty gangster, Albert Spica (Michael Gambon), his cheating wife Georgina (Helen Mirren), her unfortunate lover Michael (Alan Howard), and the cook, Richard (Richard Bohringer) who prepares their meal(s). The film famously ends with—and perhaps earned its NC-17 rating for—a scene in which Richard serves Albert Michael’s dead body, and Georgina encourages him to eat the corpse’s cooked cock. Getting his just desserts, Albert is called a cannibal. “Eat Drink Man Woman” Ang Lee’s mouth-watering opening scene of a meal being prepared sets the appropriate tone for this poignant film about Master Chef Chu (Sihung Lung) and his three grown daughters. The family gathers around the table for dinner every Sunday. Whenever they get together, however, someone always seems to have an announcement that causes everyone else to go into a tailspin. In one of the film’s most ironic scenes, Chu, whose taste buds are failing, prepares a gorgeous meal that everyone refuses to eat. “Eraserhead” The chicken dinner in David Lynch’s deadpan debut is truly memorable. There is a strange conversation about a numb arm, and the chicken’s animated response to being cut up is that cooked birds fidget and bleed. The bizarre behavior by one of the other guests at the table prompts the comment, “She’ll be alright in a minute.” But will she, really? Lynch prepares a real surreal meal. “Like Water for Chocolate” Proving the magic properties of food, this romantic Mexican film uses magical realism and a dish of quail with rose petals to cause Pedro (Marco Leonardi) and Tita (Lumi Cavazos) to fall passionately in love. The alchemical phenomenon of Tita’s blood that permeates the sauce “invades” Pedro’s body in a sensual way. “The nectar of the gods!” Pedro exclaims at dinner, feeling passionate. However, Tita’s disapproving mother (Regina Torné) thinks the dish is much too salty. “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” It’s a sure thing that things will go badly for the Griswolds, but the film’s Christmas dinner table scene is pretty funny. Not only does Aunt Bethany (Mae Questel) have an interesting interpretation of saying grace, but the turkey is so dry it deflates. (The extended family politely chokes it down anyway.) There are other awkward moments involving Uncle Eddie (Randy Quaid) or the family pets, which are either really amusing or really disgusting, depending on one’s taste. “Tom Jones” This adaptation of Henry Fielding’s picaresque novel features one of the most famous eating scenes in all of movie history. When Tom (Albert Finney) and Mrs. Waters (Joyce Redman) share a meal, they practically seduce each other at the table. Director Tony Richardson conveys all the erotic properties of food as Finney looks lustily at both his meal and his dining companion while they ravish a chicken leg and each other. “Tom Jones” proves that slurping an oyster is ideal foreplay. The characters don’t say a word to one another, but their body language and their hungry tongues express it all.
The unprecedented nightmare of Donald Trump’s campaign: We’ve openly begun using the F-word in American politics
Over the past week or so, something unusual has happened in American politics: political figures, mainstream scholars and commentators are describing a leading contender for president of the United States as a fascist. Sure, people on barstools around the country have done this forever but it's unprecedented to see such a thing on national television and in the pages of major newspapers. For instance, take a look at this piece by MJ Lee at CNN: 
[I]t it was after Trump started calling for stronger surveillance of Muslim-Americans in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks that a handful of conservatives ventured to call Trump's rhetoric something much more dangerous: fascism. [...] "Trump is a fascist. And that's not a term I use loosely or often. But he's earned it," tweeted Max Boot, a conservative fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who is advising Marco Rubio. "Forced federal registration of US citizens, based on religious identity, is fascism. Period. Nothing else to call it," Jeb Bush national security adviser John Noonan wrote on Twitter. Conservative Iowa radio host Steve Deace, who has endorsed Ted Cruz, also used the "F" word last week: "If Obama proposed the same religion registry as Trump every conservative in the country would call it what it is -- creeping fascism."Yes, this is a hard fought primary campaign with insults flying in every direction. But ask yourself when was the last time you heard Republicans using the "F" word against someone running in their own party? I can't remember it happening in decades. It's possible that some members of the GOP establishment called Barry Goldwater a fascist in 1964 (Democrats did, for sure) but that was half a century ago. In recent years this just has not been considered politically correct on left or right. The CNN story goes on to interview various scholars who all say that to one degree or another Trump is, indeed, fascistic if not what we used to call "a total fascist." Historian Rick Perlstein was the first to venture there when he wrote this piece some months back, It's hard to understand why this has been so difficult to see. On the day he announced his campaign, Trump openly said he believed that undocumented workers are not just criminals (that's a common refrain among the anti-immigrant right which fatuously chants "they broke the law by coming here") but violent rapists, killers and gang members. He said he wants to deport millions of people, including American citizens. In fact, he wants to restrict American citizenship to people whose parents are citizens, and thus are guaranteed citizenship by the 14th amendment. For months Trump has been saying that we cannot allow Syrian refugees into the country and promising to send the ones who are already here back. He has indicated a willingness to require American Muslims to register with the government and thinks they should be put under surveillance. He condemns every other country on earth as an enemy, whether economic, military or both, and promises to beat them to "make America great again." Despite the fact that the U.S. is the world's only superpower, he says he will make it so strong that "nobody will ever mess with us again" so that it was "highly, highly, highly, unlikely" that he would have to use nuclear weapons. And he said quite clearly that he believes,
“we’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule… And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago…"Does that add up to fascism? Yeah, pretty much. In his book, "Rush, Newspeak and Fascism" David Neiwert explained that the dictionary definition of the word often leaves out the most important characteristics of the philosophy, which are "its claims to represent the "true character" of the respective national identities among which it arises; and its mythic core of national rebirth -- not to mention its corporatist component, its anti-liberalism, its glorification of violence and its contempt for weakness." If that's not Donald Trump I don't know what is. But if that doesn't convince you, surely this quote from Monday in Ohio will:
"This morning they asked me a question. 'Would you approve waterboarding" Would I approve waterboarding? Yeah. And let me ask you a question? I said, on the other side, they chop off our young people's heads and they put 'em on a stick. On the other side they build these iron cages and they'll put 20 people in them and they drop 'em in the ocean for 15 minutes and pull 'em up 15 minutes later. Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I'd approve it, you bet your ass — in a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work.They'll say, 'oh it has no value', well I know people, very, very important people and they want to be politically correct and I see some people taking on television, 'well I don't know if it works' and they tell me later on, 'it works, it works, believe me, it works'. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway for what they're doing to us."Now it's true that Trump isn't the first important political figure to publicly endorse waterboarding. Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently said he'd do it again "in a heartbeat" and falsely claimed that "it works." But even he kept up the fiction that it was rarely employed and only then for interrogation purposes. I don't know that any top political figure has openly endorsed torture to exact revenge. But then Trump doesn't take his cues from political figures. He channels the ethos of talk radio and emulates the king, Rush Limbaugh, who famously described the torture at Abu Ghraib this way:
"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it, and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?" [...] "There's only one thing to do here, folks, and that's achieve victory over people who have targeted us for loooong, long time, well over 15, 20 years. It's the only way to deal with this, and that's why obsessing about a single incident or two of so-called abuse in a prison is nothing more than a giant distraction and could up being something that will really tie our hands and handcuffs us in what the real objective is here, which is the preservation of our way of life and our country."Donald Trump endorses torture as a method of exacting revenge on people simply because of their nationality or religion. And he gets huge cheers when he talks about that as well as deportations and military invasions and torture and revenge. He may be the first openly fascistic frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination but the ground was prepared and the seeds of his success sowed over the course of many years. We've had fascism flowing through the American political bloodstream for quite some time.
Bernie Sanders’s Refreshingly Sane Foreign Policy
Bernie Sanders’s economic populism and domestic agenda receive a lot attention, and they should - he’s a unique and important voice on these fronts. But Bernie’s refreshing sanity on foreign policy gets overlooked far too often. This is especially problematic given the most recent Paris attacks and the renewed emphasis on national security. Sanders gave a major speech last week at Georgetown University, the central theme of which was democratic socialism. Understandably, much of the coverage focused on Sanders’s efforts to situate his brand of socialism in the broader American tradition. However, Sanders also used his speech to talk about our foreign policy dilemma in the Middle East. His remarks were what we’ve come to expect from Sanders: honest. Because he doesn’t spin the way other politicians do, Sanders brings a kind of clarity to this conversation, a clarity that’s desperately needed in our current climate. Conservatives will likely dismiss Sanders as a dovish liberal who doesn’t understand foreign policy, but that’s because they don’t want to hear what he has to say. In the speech, Sanders makes clear that he both understands the crisis and the complicated political realities on the ground. “The United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime,” Sanders said, and we must “create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing. But we cannot – and should not – do it alone.” [Emphasis mine]. The part about not doing it alone is critical. To begin with, unlike most candidates, Sanders concedes that we’ve being going it alone for decades now, with disastrous results.
“Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgement that unilateral military action should be a last resort…and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Arbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sort of policies that do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated.”It’s astonishing how many candidates on the Right in particular simply refuse to acknowledge that our previous encroachments around the world have done more harm than good (For example, our invasion of Iraq created the vacuum into which ISIS inserted itself). Reminding Americans of our history is necessary, however. It’s a good way to avoid repeating mistakes. This has to be part of the conversation about ISIS. Everyone agrees that ISIS is a threat, and that something has to be done about it. But this isn’t a problem that American can or should solve on its own. Sanders explains why:
“But let’s be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations – with the strong support of their global partners…What does this mean? Well, it means that, in many cases, we must ask more from those in the region. While Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Lebanon have accepted their responsibilities for taking in Syrian refugees, other countries in the region have nothing or very little.”We’ve wasted too much money and spilled too much blood fighting a war on terror that clearly isn’t working. We’re in a war, and we have to fight it, but we can’t win it alone. “Muslims must lead the fight,” Sanders declared, because “it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.” Countries in the region have arguably a much bigger stake in this fight than we do. As Sanders points out, Saudi Arabia (our chief ally in the region and a prolific fount of extremist ideology), Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and others are “countries of enormous wealth and resources” who “have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change.” For too long these countries have sat idle while America has done the heavy lifting – this isn’t sustainable and it’s not working in any case. And yet Republicans insist that America has to play a larger role, that we have to shoulder more of the burden, and that we have to fight the tactic of terrorism without addressing its ideological fountainhead. Indeed, the majority of Republicans – not all, to be fair, but most – refuse to see the connection between the Iraq War and the present destabilization of the region, without which ISIS would not exist. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, for instance, are calling for more troops on the ground without any discernible plan to deal with the more fundamental causes of terrorism. Worse still, they want America to “lead the way” which means allowing the countries closest to and most invested in this fight to allow us to counterproductively wage it on their behalf. We’ve tried this strategy. It failed. It’s time to let the region police itself. That doesn’t mean America doesn’t have a role to play – surely we do. But unless we accept that this isn’t merely an American fight, we’ll continue to create more problems than we solve.Bernie Sanders’s economic populism and domestic agenda receive a lot attention, and they should - he’s a unique and important voice on these fronts. But Bernie’s refreshing sanity on foreign policy gets overlooked far too often. This is especially problematic given the most recent Paris attacks and the renewed emphasis on national security. Sanders gave a major speech last week at Georgetown University, the central theme of which was democratic socialism. Understandably, much of the coverage focused on Sanders’s efforts to situate his brand of socialism in the broader American tradition. However, Sanders also used his speech to talk about our foreign policy dilemma in the Middle East. His remarks were what we’ve come to expect from Sanders: honest. Because he doesn’t spin the way other politicians do, Sanders brings a kind of clarity to this conversation, a clarity that’s desperately needed in our current climate. Conservatives will likely dismiss Sanders as a dovish liberal who doesn’t understand foreign policy, but that’s because they don’t want to hear what he has to say. In the speech, Sanders makes clear that he both understands the crisis and the complicated political realities on the ground. “The United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime,” Sanders said, and we must “create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing. But we cannot – and should not – do it alone.” [Emphasis mine]. The part about not doing it alone is critical. To begin with, unlike most candidates, Sanders concedes that we’ve being going it alone for decades now, with disastrous results.
“Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgement that unilateral military action should be a last resort…and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Arbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sort of policies that do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated.”It’s astonishing how many candidates on the Right in particular simply refuse to acknowledge that our previous encroachments around the world have done more harm than good (For example, our invasion of Iraq created the vacuum into which ISIS inserted itself). Reminding Americans of our history is necessary, however. It’s a good way to avoid repeating mistakes. This has to be part of the conversation about ISIS. Everyone agrees that ISIS is a threat, and that something has to be done about it. But this isn’t a problem that American can or should solve on its own. Sanders explains why:
“But let’s be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations – with the strong support of their global partners…What does this mean? Well, it means that, in many cases, we must ask more from those in the region. While Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Lebanon have accepted their responsibilities for taking in Syrian refugees, other countries in the region have nothing or very little.”We’ve wasted too much money and spilled too much blood fighting a war on terror that clearly isn’t working. We’re in a war, and we have to fight it, but we can’t win it alone. “Muslims must lead the fight,” Sanders declared, because “it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.” Countries in the region have arguably a much bigger stake in this fight than we do. As Sanders points out, Saudi Arabia (our chief ally in the region and a prolific fount of extremist ideology), Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and others are “countries of enormous wealth and resources” who “have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change.” For too long these countries have sat idle while America has done the heavy lifting – this isn’t sustainable and it’s not working in any case. And yet Republicans insist that America has to play a larger role, that we have to shoulder more of the burden, and that we have to fight the tactic of terrorism without addressing its ideological fountainhead. Indeed, the majority of Republicans – not all, to be fair, but most – refuse to see the connection between the Iraq War and the present destabilization of the region, without which ISIS would not exist. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, for instance, are calling for more troops on the ground without any discernible plan to deal with the more fundamental causes of terrorism. Worse still, they want America to “lead the way” which means allowing the countries closest to and most invested in this fight to allow us to counterproductively wage it on their behalf. We’ve tried this strategy. It failed. It’s time to let the region police itself. That doesn’t mean America doesn’t have a role to play – surely we do. But unless we accept that this isn’t merely an American fight, we’ll continue to create more problems than we solve.Bernie Sanders’s economic populism and domestic agenda receive a lot attention, and they should - he’s a unique and important voice on these fronts. But Bernie’s refreshing sanity on foreign policy gets overlooked far too often. This is especially problematic given the most recent Paris attacks and the renewed emphasis on national security. Sanders gave a major speech last week at Georgetown University, the central theme of which was democratic socialism. Understandably, much of the coverage focused on Sanders’s efforts to situate his brand of socialism in the broader American tradition. However, Sanders also used his speech to talk about our foreign policy dilemma in the Middle East. His remarks were what we’ve come to expect from Sanders: honest. Because he doesn’t spin the way other politicians do, Sanders brings a kind of clarity to this conversation, a clarity that’s desperately needed in our current climate. Conservatives will likely dismiss Sanders as a dovish liberal who doesn’t understand foreign policy, but that’s because they don’t want to hear what he has to say. In the speech, Sanders makes clear that he both understands the crisis and the complicated political realities on the ground. “The United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime,” Sanders said, and we must “create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing. But we cannot – and should not – do it alone.” [Emphasis mine]. The part about not doing it alone is critical. To begin with, unlike most candidates, Sanders concedes that we’ve being going it alone for decades now, with disastrous results.
“Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgement that unilateral military action should be a last resort…and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Arbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sort of policies that do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated.”It’s astonishing how many candidates on the Right in particular simply refuse to acknowledge that our previous encroachments around the world have done more harm than good (For example, our invasion of Iraq created the vacuum into which ISIS inserted itself). Reminding Americans of our history is necessary, however. It’s a good way to avoid repeating mistakes. This has to be part of the conversation about ISIS. Everyone agrees that ISIS is a threat, and that something has to be done about it. But this isn’t a problem that American can or should solve on its own. Sanders explains why:
“But let’s be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations – with the strong support of their global partners…What does this mean? Well, it means that, in many cases, we must ask more from those in the region. While Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Lebanon have accepted their responsibilities for taking in Syrian refugees, other countries in the region have nothing or very little.”We’ve wasted too much money and spilled too much blood fighting a war on terror that clearly isn’t working. We’re in a war, and we have to fight it, but we can’t win it alone. “Muslims must lead the fight,” Sanders declared, because “it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.” Countries in the region have arguably a much bigger stake in this fight than we do. As Sanders points out, Saudi Arabia (our chief ally in the region and a prolific fount of extremist ideology), Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and others are “countries of enormous wealth and resources” who “have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change.” For too long these countries have sat idle while America has done the heavy lifting – this isn’t sustainable and it’s not working in any case. And yet Republicans insist that America has to play a larger role, that we have to shoulder more of the burden, and that we have to fight the tactic of terrorism without addressing its ideological fountainhead. Indeed, the majority of Republicans – not all, to be fair, but most – refuse to see the connection between the Iraq War and the present destabilization of the region, without which ISIS would not exist. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, for instance, are calling for more troops on the ground without any discernible plan to deal with the more fundamental causes of terrorism. Worse still, they want America to “lead the way” which means allowing the countries closest to and most invested in this fight to allow us to counterproductively wage it on their behalf. We’ve tried this strategy. It failed. It’s time to let the region police itself. That doesn’t mean America doesn’t have a role to play – surely we do. But unless we accept that this isn’t merely an American fight, we’ll continue to create more problems than we solve.Bernie Sanders’s economic populism and domestic agenda receive a lot attention, and they should - he’s a unique and important voice on these fronts. But Bernie’s refreshing sanity on foreign policy gets overlooked far too often. This is especially problematic given the most recent Paris attacks and the renewed emphasis on national security. Sanders gave a major speech last week at Georgetown University, the central theme of which was democratic socialism. Understandably, much of the coverage focused on Sanders’s efforts to situate his brand of socialism in the broader American tradition. However, Sanders also used his speech to talk about our foreign policy dilemma in the Middle East. His remarks were what we’ve come to expect from Sanders: honest. Because he doesn’t spin the way other politicians do, Sanders brings a kind of clarity to this conversation, a clarity that’s desperately needed in our current climate. Conservatives will likely dismiss Sanders as a dovish liberal who doesn’t understand foreign policy, but that’s because they don’t want to hear what he has to say. In the speech, Sanders makes clear that he both understands the crisis and the complicated political realities on the ground. “The United States must pursue policies to destroy the brutal and barbaric ISIS regime,” Sanders said, and we must “create conditions that prevent fanatical extremist ideologies from flourishing. But we cannot – and should not – do it alone.” [Emphasis mine]. The part about not doing it alone is critical. To begin with, unlike most candidates, Sanders concedes that we’ve being going it alone for decades now, with disastrous results.
“Our response must begin with an understanding of past mistakes and missteps in our previous approaches to foreign policy. It begins with the acknowledgement that unilateral military action should be a last resort…and that ill-conceived military decisions, such as the invasion of Iraq, can wreak far-reaching devastation and destabilize entire regions for decades. It begins with the reflection that the failed policy decisions of the past – rushing to war, regime change in Iraq, or toppling Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, or Guatemalan President Arbenz in 1954, Brazilian President Goulart in 1964, Chilean President Allende in 1973. These are the sort of policies that do not work, do not make us safer, and must not be repeated.”It’s astonishing how many candidates on the Right in particular simply refuse to acknowledge that our previous encroachments around the world have done more harm than good (For example, our invasion of Iraq created the vacuum into which ISIS inserted itself). Reminding Americans of our history is necessary, however. It’s a good way to avoid repeating mistakes. This has to be part of the conversation about ISIS. Everyone agrees that ISIS is a threat, and that something has to be done about it. But this isn’t a problem that American can or should solve on its own. Sanders explains why:
“But let’s be very clear. While the U.S. and other western nations have the strength of our militaries and political systems, the fight against ISIS is a struggle for the soul of Islam, and countering violent extremism and destroying ISIS must be done primarily by Muslim nations – with the strong support of their global partners…What does this mean? Well, it means that, in many cases, we must ask more from those in the region. While Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Lebanon have accepted their responsibilities for taking in Syrian refugees, other countries in the region have nothing or very little.”We’ve wasted too much money and spilled too much blood fighting a war on terror that clearly isn’t working. We’re in a war, and we have to fight it, but we can’t win it alone. “Muslims must lead the fight,” Sanders declared, because “it is incumbent on Muslim nations and communities to confront those who seek to hijack their societies and generations with intolerance and violent ideology.” Countries in the region have arguably a much bigger stake in this fight than we do. As Sanders points out, Saudi Arabia (our chief ally in the region and a prolific fount of extremist ideology), Kuwait, Qatar, UAE and others are “countries of enormous wealth and resources” who “have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change.” For too long these countries have sat idle while America has done the heavy lifting – this isn’t sustainable and it’s not working in any case. And yet Republicans insist that America has to play a larger role, that we have to shoulder more of the burden, and that we have to fight the tactic of terrorism without addressing its ideological fountainhead. Indeed, the majority of Republicans – not all, to be fair, but most – refuse to see the connection between the Iraq War and the present destabilization of the region, without which ISIS would not exist. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, for instance, are calling for more troops on the ground without any discernible plan to deal with the more fundamental causes of terrorism. Worse still, they want America to “lead the way” which means allowing the countries closest to and most invested in this fight to allow us to counterproductively wage it on their behalf. We’ve tried this strategy. It failed. It’s time to let the region police itself. That doesn’t mean America doesn’t have a role to play – surely we do. But unless we accept that this isn’t merely an American fight, we’ll continue to create more problems than we solve.
Don’t go home for the holidays: For some of us, Friendsgiving is more than a meal — it’s a lifesaver
There’s an old saying that there’s nothing worse than spending the holidays alone, but for some Americans, there’s nothing lonelier than family. While Thanksgiving might conjure up a "Home for the Holidays"-style image of Mom, Dad, and the whole family gathered around a succulent headless bird, this isn’t the reality for everyone—including many queer people. For instance, 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ, forced out of their homes and communities after coming out. Some queer youth and adults may be cut off from contact with their family entirely, while others might have parents or siblings that are struggling with tolerance. Many families may never get to that place of understanding. But you don’t have to identify as queer to understand why making the often arduous trek back home isn’t joyous for everyone, especially if you live in another state or abroad. Pew found that 75 percent of college grads relocate at least once, and that’s likely be for work in large cities, taking them away from the communities in which they were raised. Statistics show that more Americans are traveling for Thanksgiving than ever, and that experience can be a headache. The holidays are the worst time to fly, between the increased ticket prices and the nightmare lines at the airport. JFK, for example, has the longest customs wait times in the country (up to 93 minutes on average), and that estimate doesn’t even factor in the holiday rush. If you hate flying or you, well, hate your family, Friendsgiving offers an alternative to what can be an exhausting tradition. Although its origins are unclear, the concept was seemingly pioneered by the popular television sitcom Friends, in which the titular comrades for sit down for a yearly meal together. But the Friendsgiving trend has become particularly popular with young people in the era of social media—with the first Urban Dictionary entry for the observance dating back to 2009. On Instagram and Facebook each year, millennials commonly share photos of home-cooked meals and sepia-tinged selfies in which guests pile together to make duck faces. The observance is usually celebrated the day before Thanksgiving, meaning that young people don’t have to choose between their friends and relatives. (Others might celebrate Friendsgiving in place of family time.) USA Today’s Kirsten Clark posits that the added festivities are an outgrowth of “a generation of people who schedule their lives around events.” Clark interviews Jason Dorsey, a Texas-based researcher and self-described “millennial expert,” who describes young people as “the most event-driven generation.” According to Dorsey, millennials so need to pack their calendars with things to do that we even create new holidays—like National Donut Day or Talk Like a Pirate Day—to fill the empty space. But it’s not just the rise of Facebook event invites that has led millennials to rethink our definition of what the holidays mean to us. It’s part of the expanding concept of family itself. In the queer community, the idea of “chosen family” is popular among LGBT-identified individuals as an alternative to the nuclear unit, building the intimate communities we too often lack at home. As the name suggests, the term refers to the people you opt-in to surrounding yourself with—whether those are friends, neighbors, or peers. Even Greek life, by terming its participants as sorority sisters and frat brothers, has sneakily embraced the queer redefinition of family as a relative concept. Queering the family has gone surprisingly mainstream, so much so that Rachel Green herself, Jennifer Aniston, discussed it in a 2011 interview. “Where would you be without friends?” she asked. “The people to pick you up when you need lifting? We come from homes far from perfect, so you end up almost parent and sibling to your friends—your own chosen family. There’s nothing like a really loyal, dependable, good friend. Nothing.” And the former "Friends" star isn’t the only celebrity to embrace the idea. During the press tour for the upcoming "Sisters," in which Tina Fey and Amy Poehler play siblings, Poehler said, “Neither Tina or I have sisters in real life. We are each other's chosen sister.” Whether chosen family is a complement to your relatives or a replacement for them, these relationships are some of the most sustaining in our lives. And as much as I’m one of the lucky ones who has a fairly good relationship with my family (it’s complicated), I’ve recognized how important it is to set aside a day to give thanks to the people who choose to be around you. Every year, I spend Thanksgiving with two of my best friends—a lesbian couple in Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood who spend the entire day cooking. In my years of attendance, we’ve never once eaten the turkey before 10 p.m.—because the guests are usually too busy enjoying each other’s company (read: drunk) to worry about it. But with time, our chosen families change. I relocated to New York last year for a job,and they split up. After this year’s holiday was called off, my boyfriend and I decided to carry on the tradition ourselves by hosting our own Friendsgiving with two women in Harlem we plan on rooming with in the spring. They were the first people I really felt close to in the city, and on paper, we make no sense as friends. I’m a staunch atheist, and they go to church together in the Bronx every Sunday. They’re open-hearted and kind, whereas I often come across as cold and standoffish (I blame my RBF). But despite our seeming differences, I can’t imagine anywhere else I’d rather be tomorrow. They always say that you don’t get to pick your relatives, but Friendsgiving recognizes that sometimes your family chooses you.There’s an old saying that there’s nothing worse than spending the holidays alone, but for some Americans, there’s nothing lonelier than family. While Thanksgiving might conjure up a "Home for the Holidays"-style image of Mom, Dad, and the whole family gathered around a succulent headless bird, this isn’t the reality for everyone—including many queer people. For instance, 40 percent of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ, forced out of their homes and communities after coming out. Some queer youth and adults may be cut off from contact with their family entirely, while others might have parents or siblings that are struggling with tolerance. Many families may never get to that place of understanding. But you don’t have to identify as queer to understand why making the often arduous trek back home isn’t joyous for everyone, especially if you live in another state or abroad. Pew found that 75 percent of college grads relocate at least once, and that’s likely be for work in large cities, taking them away from the communities in which they were raised. Statistics show that more Americans are traveling for Thanksgiving than ever, and that experience can be a headache. The holidays are the worst time to fly, between the increased ticket prices and the nightmare lines at the airport. JFK, for example, has the longest customs wait times in the country (up to 93 minutes on average), and that estimate doesn’t even factor in the holiday rush. If you hate flying or you, well, hate your family, Friendsgiving offers an alternative to what can be an exhausting tradition. Although its origins are unclear, the concept was seemingly pioneered by the popular television sitcom Friends, in which the titular comrades for sit down for a yearly meal together. But the Friendsgiving trend has become particularly popular with young people in the era of social media—with the first Urban Dictionary entry for the observance dating back to 2009. On Instagram and Facebook each year, millennials commonly share photos of home-cooked meals and sepia-tinged selfies in which guests pile together to make duck faces. The observance is usually celebrated the day before Thanksgiving, meaning that young people don’t have to choose between their friends and relatives. (Others might celebrate Friendsgiving in place of family time.) USA Today’s Kirsten Clark posits that the added festivities are an outgrowth of “a generation of people who schedule their lives around events.” Clark interviews Jason Dorsey, a Texas-based researcher and self-described “millennial expert,” who describes young people as “the most event-driven generation.” According to Dorsey, millennials so need to pack their calendars with things to do that we even create new holidays—like National Donut Day or Talk Like a Pirate Day—to fill the empty space. But it’s not just the rise of Facebook event invites that has led millennials to rethink our definition of what the holidays mean to us. It’s part of the expanding concept of family itself. In the queer community, the idea of “chosen family” is popular among LGBT-identified individuals as an alternative to the nuclear unit, building the intimate communities we too often lack at home. As the name suggests, the term refers to the people you opt-in to surrounding yourself with—whether those are friends, neighbors, or peers. Even Greek life, by terming its participants as sorority sisters and frat brothers, has sneakily embraced the queer redefinition of family as a relative concept. Queering the family has gone surprisingly mainstream, so much so that Rachel Green herself, Jennifer Aniston, discussed it in a 2011 interview. “Where would you be without friends?” she asked. “The people to pick you up when you need lifting? We come from homes far from perfect, so you end up almost parent and sibling to your friends—your own chosen family. There’s nothing like a really loyal, dependable, good friend. Nothing.” And the former "Friends" star isn’t the only celebrity to embrace the idea. During the press tour for the upcoming "Sisters," in which Tina Fey and Amy Poehler play siblings, Poehler said, “Neither Tina or I have sisters in real life. We are each other's chosen sister.” Whether chosen family is a complement to your relatives or a replacement for them, these relationships are some of the most sustaining in our lives. And as much as I’m one of the lucky ones who has a fairly good relationship with my family (it’s complicated), I’ve recognized how important it is to set aside a day to give thanks to the people who choose to be around you. Every year, I spend Thanksgiving with two of my best friends—a lesbian couple in Chicago’s Andersonville neighborhood who spend the entire day cooking. In my years of attendance, we’ve never once eaten the turkey before 10 p.m.—because the guests are usually too busy enjoying each other’s company (read: drunk) to worry about it. But with time, our chosen families change. I relocated to New York last year for a job,and they split up. After this year’s holiday was called off, my boyfriend and I decided to carry on the tradition ourselves by hosting our own Friendsgiving with two women in Harlem we plan on rooming with in the spring. They were the first people I really felt close to in the city, and on paper, we make no sense as friends. I’m a staunch atheist, and they go to church together in the Bronx every Sunday. They’re open-hearted and kind, whereas I often come across as cold and standoffish (I blame my RBF). But despite our seeming differences, I can’t imagine anywhere else I’d rather be tomorrow. They always say that you don’t get to pick your relatives, but Friendsgiving recognizes that sometimes your family chooses you.
Clinton apologizes for calling immigrants “illegal” — but not for her anti-immigrant record
“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire. After a lot of criticism, Clinton apologized for calling immigrants “illegal.” “That was a poor choice of words,” she said, making amends. But there was apparently no apology for her “numerous” votes “to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” The term “illegal” is offensive when applied to a human being. But the migrant deaths caused by the sort of border militarization measures Clinton has supported are far more reprehensible because they have been deadly. In 2006, Clinton voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, mandating “at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending” across at least 700 miles of the 1,969-mile border with Mexico, according to the Washington Office on Latin America. Bernie Sanders, then a member of the U.S. House, voted against it. The fencing complex was never completed in its entirety due to a cost that would have reached more than $4.1 billion, according to WOLA. Nevertheless, hundreds of miles of fencing were built. The upshot of border militarization has been death. According to Border Patrol, deaths along the Southwest Border rose from 263 in 1998 to 380 in 2000, 454 in 2006 and 471 in 2012. The U.S. Government has spent more than $130 billion on border surveillance and security over the past two decades, according to an August story in the Arizona Republic. According to Border Patrol, their force of agents grew from 4,139 agents in fiscal year 1992 to 9,212 in 2000 and 21,444 in 2011. All of that militarization has resulted in death for migrants because it has pushed border crossers out into dangerous places like southern Arizona's Sonoran desert. It has also caused rampant civil rights and liberties violations against residents border communities who are subject to Border Patrol stops and searches conducted without regard for normal Fourth Amendment protections. Clinton no doubt has “evolved” on immigration and backs measures to grant undocumented people legal status. She has also morphed from a critic of providing drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in 2007 to this year, a supporter. Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer recently told David Axelrod that he had pulled his proposal to provide licenses ahead of the election in part because of behind-the-scenes pressure from the Clinton campaign. "We heard from folks [on Clinton's campaign] who said they want this issue gone," Spitzer said on Axelrod's podcast, according to the Huffington Post's account. "I thought the issue was a metaphor for her vacillation." Clinton, however, has never vacillated on border militarization, let alone apologized, as far as I can glean (and her campaign does not respond requests for comment from me). Some Clinton partisans make the strange argument that Hillary can benefit from Bill's legacy when it proves beneficial and duck it when it proves controversial. In today's Democratic Party, immigration would be one of those areas where Bill Clinton's record would be extremely controversial. President Clinton, as University of San Francisco law professor Bill Hing told the Republic, presided over a dramatic increase in border militarization. This included, per the Republic:
“Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground sensors, lights and other technology... Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants could be stripped of their status and deported.”Hillary Clinton has no doubt embraced policies far more humane than those put forward by her increasingly nativist Republican opponents. That, however, is nothing to brag about. Insulting migrants is reprehensible. Forcing them into the desert, increasing their chance of death, is something much worse.“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire. After a lot of criticism, Clinton apologized for calling immigrants “illegal.” “That was a poor choice of words,” she said, making amends. But there was apparently no apology for her “numerous” votes “to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” The term “illegal” is offensive when applied to a human being. But the migrant deaths caused by the sort of border militarization measures Clinton has supported are far more reprehensible because they have been deadly. In 2006, Clinton voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, mandating “at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending” across at least 700 miles of the 1,969-mile border with Mexico, according to the Washington Office on Latin America. Bernie Sanders, then a member of the U.S. House, voted against it. The fencing complex was never completed in its entirety due to a cost that would have reached more than $4.1 billion, according to WOLA. Nevertheless, hundreds of miles of fencing were built. The upshot of border militarization has been death. According to Border Patrol, deaths along the Southwest Border rose from 263 in 1998 to 380 in 2000, 454 in 2006 and 471 in 2012. The U.S. Government has spent more than $130 billion on border surveillance and security over the past two decades, according to an August story in the Arizona Republic. According to Border Patrol, their force of agents grew from 4,139 agents in fiscal year 1992 to 9,212 in 2000 and 21,444 in 2011. All of that militarization has resulted in death for migrants because it has pushed border crossers out into dangerous places like southern Arizona's Sonoran desert. It has also caused rampant civil rights and liberties violations against residents border communities who are subject to Border Patrol stops and searches conducted without regard for normal Fourth Amendment protections. Clinton no doubt has “evolved” on immigration and backs measures to grant undocumented people legal status. She has also morphed from a critic of providing drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in 2007 to this year, a supporter. Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer recently told David Axelrod that he had pulled his proposal to provide licenses ahead of the election in part because of behind-the-scenes pressure from the Clinton campaign. "We heard from folks [on Clinton's campaign] who said they want this issue gone," Spitzer said on Axelrod's podcast, according to the Huffington Post's account. "I thought the issue was a metaphor for her vacillation." Clinton, however, has never vacillated on border militarization, let alone apologized, as far as I can glean (and her campaign does not respond requests for comment from me). Some Clinton partisans make the strange argument that Hillary can benefit from Bill's legacy when it proves beneficial and duck it when it proves controversial. In today's Democratic Party, immigration would be one of those areas where Bill Clinton's record would be extremely controversial. President Clinton, as University of San Francisco law professor Bill Hing told the Republic, presided over a dramatic increase in border militarization. This included, per the Republic:
“Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground sensors, lights and other technology... Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants could be stripped of their status and deported.”Hillary Clinton has no doubt embraced policies far more humane than those put forward by her increasingly nativist Republican opponents. That, however, is nothing to brag about. Insulting migrants is reprehensible. Forcing them into the desert, increasing their chance of death, is something much worse.“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire. After a lot of criticism, Clinton apologized for calling immigrants “illegal.” “That was a poor choice of words,” she said, making amends. But there was apparently no apology for her “numerous” votes “to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” The term “illegal” is offensive when applied to a human being. But the migrant deaths caused by the sort of border militarization measures Clinton has supported are far more reprehensible because they have been deadly. In 2006, Clinton voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, mandating “at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending” across at least 700 miles of the 1,969-mile border with Mexico, according to the Washington Office on Latin America. Bernie Sanders, then a member of the U.S. House, voted against it. The fencing complex was never completed in its entirety due to a cost that would have reached more than $4.1 billion, according to WOLA. Nevertheless, hundreds of miles of fencing were built. The upshot of border militarization has been death. According to Border Patrol, deaths along the Southwest Border rose from 263 in 1998 to 380 in 2000, 454 in 2006 and 471 in 2012. The U.S. Government has spent more than $130 billion on border surveillance and security over the past two decades, according to an August story in the Arizona Republic. According to Border Patrol, their force of agents grew from 4,139 agents in fiscal year 1992 to 9,212 in 2000 and 21,444 in 2011. All of that militarization has resulted in death for migrants because it has pushed border crossers out into dangerous places like southern Arizona's Sonoran desert. It has also caused rampant civil rights and liberties violations against residents border communities who are subject to Border Patrol stops and searches conducted without regard for normal Fourth Amendment protections. Clinton no doubt has “evolved” on immigration and backs measures to grant undocumented people legal status. She has also morphed from a critic of providing drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in 2007 to this year, a supporter. Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer recently told David Axelrod that he had pulled his proposal to provide licenses ahead of the election in part because of behind-the-scenes pressure from the Clinton campaign. "We heard from folks [on Clinton's campaign] who said they want this issue gone," Spitzer said on Axelrod's podcast, according to the Huffington Post's account. "I thought the issue was a metaphor for her vacillation." Clinton, however, has never vacillated on border militarization, let alone apologized, as far as I can glean (and her campaign does not respond requests for comment from me). Some Clinton partisans make the strange argument that Hillary can benefit from Bill's legacy when it proves beneficial and duck it when it proves controversial. In today's Democratic Party, immigration would be one of those areas where Bill Clinton's record would be extremely controversial. President Clinton, as University of San Francisco law professor Bill Hing told the Republic, presided over a dramatic increase in border militarization. This included, per the Republic:
“Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground sensors, lights and other technology... Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants could be stripped of their status and deported.”Hillary Clinton has no doubt embraced policies far more humane than those put forward by her increasingly nativist Republican opponents. That, however, is nothing to brag about. Insulting migrants is reprehensible. Forcing them into the desert, increasing their chance of death, is something much worse.“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire. After a lot of criticism, Clinton apologized for calling immigrants “illegal.” “That was a poor choice of words,” she said, making amends. But there was apparently no apology for her “numerous” votes “to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” The term “illegal” is offensive when applied to a human being. But the migrant deaths caused by the sort of border militarization measures Clinton has supported are far more reprehensible because they have been deadly. In 2006, Clinton voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, mandating “at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending” across at least 700 miles of the 1,969-mile border with Mexico, according to the Washington Office on Latin America. Bernie Sanders, then a member of the U.S. House, voted against it. The fencing complex was never completed in its entirety due to a cost that would have reached more than $4.1 billion, according to WOLA. Nevertheless, hundreds of miles of fencing were built. The upshot of border militarization has been death. According to Border Patrol, deaths along the Southwest Border rose from 263 in 1998 to 380 in 2000, 454 in 2006 and 471 in 2012. The U.S. Government has spent more than $130 billion on border surveillance and security over the past two decades, according to an August story in the Arizona Republic. According to Border Patrol, their force of agents grew from 4,139 agents in fiscal year 1992 to 9,212 in 2000 and 21,444 in 2011. All of that militarization has resulted in death for migrants because it has pushed border crossers out into dangerous places like southern Arizona's Sonoran desert. It has also caused rampant civil rights and liberties violations against residents border communities who are subject to Border Patrol stops and searches conducted without regard for normal Fourth Amendment protections. Clinton no doubt has “evolved” on immigration and backs measures to grant undocumented people legal status. She has also morphed from a critic of providing drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in 2007 to this year, a supporter. Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer recently told David Axelrod that he had pulled his proposal to provide licenses ahead of the election in part because of behind-the-scenes pressure from the Clinton campaign. "We heard from folks [on Clinton's campaign] who said they want this issue gone," Spitzer said on Axelrod's podcast, according to the Huffington Post's account. "I thought the issue was a metaphor for her vacillation." Clinton, however, has never vacillated on border militarization, let alone apologized, as far as I can glean (and her campaign does not respond requests for comment from me). Some Clinton partisans make the strange argument that Hillary can benefit from Bill's legacy when it proves beneficial and duck it when it proves controversial. In today's Democratic Party, immigration would be one of those areas where Bill Clinton's record would be extremely controversial. President Clinton, as University of San Francisco law professor Bill Hing told the Republic, presided over a dramatic increase in border militarization. This included, per the Republic:
“Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground sensors, lights and other technology... Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants could be stripped of their status and deported.”Hillary Clinton has no doubt embraced policies far more humane than those put forward by her increasingly nativist Republican opponents. That, however, is nothing to brag about. Insulting migrants is reprehensible. Forcing them into the desert, increasing their chance of death, is something much worse.“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire. After a lot of criticism, Clinton apologized for calling immigrants “illegal.” “That was a poor choice of words,” she said, making amends. But there was apparently no apology for her “numerous” votes “to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” The term “illegal” is offensive when applied to a human being. But the migrant deaths caused by the sort of border militarization measures Clinton has supported are far more reprehensible because they have been deadly. In 2006, Clinton voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, mandating “at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending” across at least 700 miles of the 1,969-mile border with Mexico, according to the Washington Office on Latin America. Bernie Sanders, then a member of the U.S. House, voted against it. The fencing complex was never completed in its entirety due to a cost that would have reached more than $4.1 billion, according to WOLA. Nevertheless, hundreds of miles of fencing were built. The upshot of border militarization has been death. According to Border Patrol, deaths along the Southwest Border rose from 263 in 1998 to 380 in 2000, 454 in 2006 and 471 in 2012. The U.S. Government has spent more than $130 billion on border surveillance and security over the past two decades, according to an August story in the Arizona Republic. According to Border Patrol, their force of agents grew from 4,139 agents in fiscal year 1992 to 9,212 in 2000 and 21,444 in 2011. All of that militarization has resulted in death for migrants because it has pushed border crossers out into dangerous places like southern Arizona's Sonoran desert. It has also caused rampant civil rights and liberties violations against residents border communities who are subject to Border Patrol stops and searches conducted without regard for normal Fourth Amendment protections. Clinton no doubt has “evolved” on immigration and backs measures to grant undocumented people legal status. She has also morphed from a critic of providing drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in 2007 to this year, a supporter. Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer recently told David Axelrod that he had pulled his proposal to provide licenses ahead of the election in part because of behind-the-scenes pressure from the Clinton campaign. "We heard from folks [on Clinton's campaign] who said they want this issue gone," Spitzer said on Axelrod's podcast, according to the Huffington Post's account. "I thought the issue was a metaphor for her vacillation." Clinton, however, has never vacillated on border militarization, let alone apologized, as far as I can glean (and her campaign does not respond requests for comment from me). Some Clinton partisans make the strange argument that Hillary can benefit from Bill's legacy when it proves beneficial and duck it when it proves controversial. In today's Democratic Party, immigration would be one of those areas where Bill Clinton's record would be extremely controversial. President Clinton, as University of San Francisco law professor Bill Hing told the Republic, presided over a dramatic increase in border militarization. This included, per the Republic:
“Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground sensors, lights and other technology... Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants could be stripped of their status and deported.”Hillary Clinton has no doubt embraced policies far more humane than those put forward by her increasingly nativist Republican opponents. That, however, is nothing to brag about. Insulting migrants is reprehensible. Forcing them into the desert, increasing their chance of death, is something much worse.“I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in,” Clinton said at a recent campaign stop in New Hampshire. After a lot of criticism, Clinton apologized for calling immigrants “illegal.” “That was a poor choice of words,” she said, making amends. But there was apparently no apology for her “numerous” votes “to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.” The term “illegal” is offensive when applied to a human being. But the migrant deaths caused by the sort of border militarization measures Clinton has supported are far more reprehensible because they have been deadly. In 2006, Clinton voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, mandating “at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending” across at least 700 miles of the 1,969-mile border with Mexico, according to the Washington Office on Latin America. Bernie Sanders, then a member of the U.S. House, voted against it. The fencing complex was never completed in its entirety due to a cost that would have reached more than $4.1 billion, according to WOLA. Nevertheless, hundreds of miles of fencing were built. The upshot of border militarization has been death. According to Border Patrol, deaths along the Southwest Border rose from 263 in 1998 to 380 in 2000, 454 in 2006 and 471 in 2012. The U.S. Government has spent more than $130 billion on border surveillance and security over the past two decades, according to an August story in the Arizona Republic. According to Border Patrol, their force of agents grew from 4,139 agents in fiscal year 1992 to 9,212 in 2000 and 21,444 in 2011. All of that militarization has resulted in death for migrants because it has pushed border crossers out into dangerous places like southern Arizona's Sonoran desert. It has also caused rampant civil rights and liberties violations against residents border communities who are subject to Border Patrol stops and searches conducted without regard for normal Fourth Amendment protections. Clinton no doubt has “evolved” on immigration and backs measures to grant undocumented people legal status. She has also morphed from a critic of providing drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants in 2007 to this year, a supporter. Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer recently told David Axelrod that he had pulled his proposal to provide licenses ahead of the election in part because of behind-the-scenes pressure from the Clinton campaign. "We heard from folks [on Clinton's campaign] who said they want this issue gone," Spitzer said on Axelrod's podcast, according to the Huffington Post's account. "I thought the issue was a metaphor for her vacillation." Clinton, however, has never vacillated on border militarization, let alone apologized, as far as I can glean (and her campaign does not respond requests for comment from me). Some Clinton partisans make the strange argument that Hillary can benefit from Bill's legacy when it proves beneficial and duck it when it proves controversial. In today's Democratic Party, immigration would be one of those areas where Bill Clinton's record would be extremely controversial. President Clinton, as University of San Francisco law professor Bill Hing told the Republic, presided over a dramatic increase in border militarization. This included, per the Republic:
“Operation Gatekeeper, which was aimed at stopping illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border south of San Diego by deploying more Border Patrol agents, and installing fencing, ground sensors, lights and other technology... Clinton also signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a sweeping bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress that was aimed at cracking down on undocumented immigrants through a wide range of punishments. Those included barring undocumented immigrants from returning to the United States for up to 10 years, and expanding the list of crimes for which legal immigrants could be stripped of their status and deported.”Hillary Clinton has no doubt embraced policies far more humane than those put forward by her increasingly nativist Republican opponents. That, however, is nothing to brag about. Insulting migrants is reprehensible. Forcing them into the desert, increasing their chance of death, is something much worse.
It officially sucks to be female on the Internet: 95 percent of online abuse is aimed at women
This likely won't exactly come as a shock — especially if you're a woman and especially if you've spent any amount of time whatsoever online. But it's a depressing validation nonetheless. The BBC's Valeria Perasso reports Wednesday that the United Nations has issued a "worldwide wake-up call" about cyber violence against women just in time for its annual International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. And the next time someone tries to tell you it's not as bad as you say or it happens to everybody or go somewhere else if you can't handle it, please repeat this line: "The UN estimates 95% of all aggressive and denigrating behavior in online spaces is aimed at women." That's the United Nations saying that — about 95 percent of the crap that goes down. As the UN defines it, online abuse against women takes numerous forms, from threats to harassment to revenge porn. The UN Women's Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka tells the BBC: "Online violence has subverted the original positive promise of the Internet's freedoms and in too many circumstances has made it a chilling space that permits anonymous cruelty and facilitates harmful acts towards women and girls." Why does it happen, why does it persist? Because it can. Because the trolls know there will likely be zero consequences for their behavior. On a generalized level, that means anonymous self-described beta males can gather and post their fantasies of shooting up female students. They can wet themselves with glee over stolen nude photos of Hollywood actresses. And a self-anointed "creepy uncle of Reddit" boast of time as the mastermind of subreddits like Jailbait, Rapebait, Chokeabitch and Creepshots. More specifically, it means that Feminist Frequency’s Anita Sarkeesian can get threats of mass violence before a scheduled event, and have a school official shrug that "They determined the threat seems to be consistent with ones [Sarkeesian] has received at other places around the nation. The threat we received is not out of the norm for [her.]" It means game developer Brianna Wu has to leave her home after her personal information posted on 8chan, and that she get warnings like "I’ve got a K-bar and I’m coming to your house so I can shove it up your ugly feminist c__t." Think these are just isolated examples? Gosh, if only I had something to cite from oh, I don't know, this very International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Wait, how about what just happened to Holly Brockwell? Brockwell is the 29 year-old editor of Gadgette, a "tech and lifestyle" site aimed at females. Earlier this week, she wrote a piece for the BBC's 100 Women 2015 called "Desperate not to have children." In it, she admits, "There's nothing about creating another human that appeals to me," and says that her simple and private choice has made her the subject of invasive questioning and insistent arguments about why she should change her mind. She's even had doctors tell her she's "too young to even consider" her tubes tied. But if she thought the garbage she's already put up with for choosing her own reproductive future was intense, it got much worse after her story ran. The abuse she endured was so intense she briefly shut off her Twitter account, "due to the number of creepy, abusive threats she got, mainly from men," she says. And when she went to the BBC studios for a Q&A session, she was met by a security guard. She told Business Insider this week, "In the half hour between it going up and me seeing it, the volume of stuff, and the harshness of stuff, was already worrying me and made me think uh, maybe this wasn't going to be fine after all." A recent UN report calls for providers such as "Internet service providers, mobile phone companies, social networking sites, gaming sites and websites" to "explicitly recognize cyber violence against women and girls as unlawful behavior" and provide "relief to victims and survivors." But until then, the trolls will keep on trolling, and make no mistake, the people they're aiming their hatred at are female.
Why punk mattered: “Pink Floyd is not rock ‘n’ roll! It’s some bullsh*t!”
Beat Happening hasn’t experienced the kind of massive revival of interest that the Pixies and Replacements have seen, and they never sold that many records. But the Olympia, Wash., trio was a major part of the ‘80s indie-rock movement. We probably would not have Belle & Sebastian, some Riot Grrl, and a whole line of indie rock without them, and they influenced Nirvana despite sounding nothing like them. “They were resolutely unmacho and played melodic, downright quaint-sounding music,” Michael Azzerad writes in “Our Band Could Be Your Life,” his important indie chronicle. “They could barely play or sing.” These cardigan-clad lo-fi wallflowers have returned with a new 23-song compilation, “Look Around,” on Domino. (It includes “Indian Summer,” an iconic song covered by Luna and Ben Gibbard.) Salon spoke to the band’s deep-voiced singer Calvin Johnson – who was also a founder of Olympia’s legendary K Records -- from the label’s London offices. The interview has been edited slightly for clarity. Hey, congratulations for the new collection. Did you go back and listen to your old music to select the songs? No – I didn’t. I’d heard it before and stuff… Bret [Lunsford, band guitarist] put together a list of what would be a good compilation, and then Heather [Lewis, drummer] and I made some suggestions, and it ended up being what it is… I guess it’s an understatement to say Beat Happening’s songs are very different from most of the pop made today… I hope so! To what extent did you see yourself as an extension of punk? I didn’t see us an extension – I thought we were part of it. What was it that you had in common with punk? Obviously your music is not aggressive and macho the way most punk is. Well, that is just some manifestations of punk. Punk – I was very young when I first discovered punk, as most people are, when it started as a genre, in 1976 or ’77 – to me it was about freedom of expression, about being an individual and expressing yourself in a exciting way. For some people that means being aggressive. For some people it means being colorful. For some people it means being emotional. Everyone’s different, and that’s why it’s different for different people. That’s why it’s beautiful when you talk about someone like John Lydon, who talks about punk when it started in London. He said, Nobody had a Mohawk, nobody had a leather jacket – everybody dressed differently. That’s what made it special – there was no uniform. I grasped onto that concept early on. That punk was about expression… We just went with that, and elaborated on it in our own way. Were there specific punk bands that inspired you guys at the time? Oh yeah – too many to mention. Millions. Just in the Northwest there were bands like The Rejectors, the Wipers, the Dishrags…. The Beakers, Blackouts, Fastbacks. The thing that’s so striking about Beat Happening is the simplicity of it. Was that something you were deliberately going for? I think that’s another thing that punk did – it said it was okay to be simple. In the ‘70s, music had just gotten too ridiculous. Bands like Yes and Pink Floyd and all this kind of crap was just so far away from rock n roll. It’s like, What about rock ‘n’ roll? Pink Floyd is not rock ‘n’ roll! It’s some bullshit! So punk rock was about taking rock ‘n’ roll and bringing it to a point where you could have some fun. Do you have any idea why “Indian Summer” became the big Beat Happening song? Yeah – what’s the big deal? It’s a good song, but there’s so many good songs. Why pick that one. I haven’t the vaguest idea. I think “Foggy Eyes” is an amazing song – I don’t know why more people don’t cover that one. Beat Happening was not alone among ‘80s indie groups in having a woman in the band. Was that important for the band’s mission or did it just happen accidentally? I always feel like you should work with the best. So it just happened that the best was Heather Lewis. She’s a woman. Just working with the people it made sense to work with. Does it change the dynamic of the band? You’ve probably been in bands that were all guys. I’d always worked with women. It wasn’t until I was in the Halo Benders that I was in an all-male band. Before that I’d always had women in the band. How much do you listen to new music these days? It’s all I do. What’s some of the stuff you like? Does new music excite you the way it used to? Music’s great – people are always coming up with something interesting. I like Priests – they’re from D.C…. This band from L.A. I like, Dream Boys. Secret Cat, from Northern California. We played a show with then last year; I like them a lot. Ghosty, from Portland, is really great. So many great bands, music, people. There’s a band called Valet, from Portland, just put out an album called “Nature.” Sounds like you’re still pretty curious about what’s happening these days. What’s next for you? I’ve got a new album, under the name Selector Dub Narcotic. It’s called “This Party is Just Getting Started.”Beat Happening hasn’t experienced the kind of massive revival of interest that the Pixies and Replacements have seen, and they never sold that many records. But the Olympia, Wash., trio was a major part of the ‘80s indie-rock movement. We probably would not have Belle & Sebastian, some Riot Grrl, and a whole line of indie rock without them, and they influenced Nirvana despite sounding nothing like them. “They were resolutely unmacho and played melodic, downright quaint-sounding music,” Michael Azzerad writes in “Our Band Could Be Your Life,” his important indie chronicle. “They could barely play or sing.” These cardigan-clad lo-fi wallflowers have returned with a new 23-song compilation, “Look Around,” on Domino. (It includes “Indian Summer,” an iconic song covered by Luna and Ben Gibbard.) Salon spoke to the band’s deep-voiced singer Calvin Johnson – who was also a founder of Olympia’s legendary K Records -- from the label’s London offices. The interview has been edited slightly for clarity. Hey, congratulations for the new collection. Did you go back and listen to your old music to select the songs? No – I didn’t. I’d heard it before and stuff… Bret [Lunsford, band guitarist] put together a list of what would be a good compilation, and then Heather [Lewis, drummer] and I made some suggestions, and it ended up being what it is… I guess it’s an understatement to say Beat Happening’s songs are very different from most of the pop made today… I hope so! To what extent did you see yourself as an extension of punk? I didn’t see us an extension – I thought we were part of it. What was it that you had in common with punk? Obviously your music is not aggressive and macho the way most punk is. Well, that is just some manifestations of punk. Punk – I was very young when I first discovered punk, as most people are, when it started as a genre, in 1976 or ’77 – to me it was about freedom of expression, about being an individual and expressing yourself in a exciting way. For some people that means being aggressive. For some people it means being colorful. For some people it means being emotional. Everyone’s different, and that’s why it’s different for different people. That’s why it’s beautiful when you talk about someone like John Lydon, who talks about punk when it started in London. He said, Nobody had a Mohawk, nobody had a leather jacket – everybody dressed differently. That’s what made it special – there was no uniform. I grasped onto that concept early on. That punk was about expression… We just went with that, and elaborated on it in our own way. Were there specific punk bands that inspired you guys at the time? Oh yeah – too many to mention. Millions. Just in the Northwest there were bands like The Rejectors, the Wipers, the Dishrags…. The Beakers, Blackouts, Fastbacks. The thing that’s so striking about Beat Happening is the simplicity of it. Was that something you were deliberately going for? I think that’s another thing that punk did – it said it was okay to be simple. In the ‘70s, music had just gotten too ridiculous. Bands like Yes and Pink Floyd and all this kind of crap was just so far away from rock n roll. It’s like, What about rock ‘n’ roll? Pink Floyd is not rock ‘n’ roll! It’s some bullshit! So punk rock was about taking rock ‘n’ roll and bringing it to a point where you could have some fun. Do you have any idea why “Indian Summer” became the big Beat Happening song? Yeah – what’s the big deal? It’s a good song, but there’s so many good songs. Why pick that one. I haven’t the vaguest idea. I think “Foggy Eyes” is an amazing song – I don’t know why more people don’t cover that one. Beat Happening was not alone among ‘80s indie groups in having a woman in the band. Was that important for the band’s mission or did it just happen accidentally? I always feel like you should work with the best. So it just happened that the best was Heather Lewis. She’s a woman. Just working with the people it made sense to work with. Does it change the dynamic of the band? You’ve probably been in bands that were all guys. I’d always worked with women. It wasn’t until I was in the Halo Benders that I was in an all-male band. Before that I’d always had women in the band. How much do you listen to new music these days? It’s all I do. What’s some of the stuff you like? Does new music excite you the way it used to? Music’s great – people are always coming up with something interesting. I like Priests – they’re from D.C…. This band from L.A. I like, Dream Boys. Secret Cat, from Northern California. We played a show with then last year; I like them a lot. Ghosty, from Portland, is really great. So many great bands, music, people. There’s a band called Valet, from Portland, just put out an album called “Nature.” Sounds like you’re still pretty curious about what’s happening these days. What’s next for you? I’ve got a new album, under the name Selector Dub Narcotic. It’s called “This Party is Just Getting Started.”Beat Happening hasn’t experienced the kind of massive revival of interest that the Pixies and Replacements have seen, and they never sold that many records. But the Olympia, Wash., trio was a major part of the ‘80s indie-rock movement. We probably would not have Belle & Sebastian, some Riot Grrl, and a whole line of indie rock without them, and they influenced Nirvana despite sounding nothing like them. “They were resolutely unmacho and played melodic, downright quaint-sounding music,” Michael Azzerad writes in “Our Band Could Be Your Life,” his important indie chronicle. “They could barely play or sing.” These cardigan-clad lo-fi wallflowers have returned with a new 23-song compilation, “Look Around,” on Domino. (It includes “Indian Summer,” an iconic song covered by Luna and Ben Gibbard.) Salon spoke to the band’s deep-voiced singer Calvin Johnson – who was also a founder of Olympia’s legendary K Records -- from the label’s London offices. The interview has been edited slightly for clarity. Hey, congratulations for the new collection. Did you go back and listen to your old music to select the songs? No – I didn’t. I’d heard it before and stuff… Bret [Lunsford, band guitarist] put together a list of what would be a good compilation, and then Heather [Lewis, drummer] and I made some suggestions, and it ended up being what it is… I guess it’s an understatement to say Beat Happening’s songs are very different from most of the pop made today… I hope so! To what extent did you see yourself as an extension of punk? I didn’t see us an extension – I thought we were part of it. What was it that you had in common with punk? Obviously your music is not aggressive and macho the way most punk is. Well, that is just some manifestations of punk. Punk – I was very young when I first discovered punk, as most people are, when it started as a genre, in 1976 or ’77 – to me it was about freedom of expression, about being an individual and expressing yourself in a exciting way. For some people that means being aggressive. For some people it means being colorful. For some people it means being emotional. Everyone’s different, and that’s why it’s different for different people. That’s why it’s beautiful when you talk about someone like John Lydon, who talks about punk when it started in London. He said, Nobody had a Mohawk, nobody had a leather jacket – everybody dressed differently. That’s what made it special – there was no uniform. I grasped onto that concept early on. That punk was about expression… We just went with that, and elaborated on it in our own way. Were there specific punk bands that inspired you guys at the time? Oh yeah – too many to mention. Millions. Just in the Northwest there were bands like The Rejectors, the Wipers, the Dishrags…. The Beakers, Blackouts, Fastbacks. The thing that’s so striking about Beat Happening is the simplicity of it. Was that something you were deliberately going for? I think that’s another thing that punk did – it said it was okay to be simple. In the ‘70s, music had just gotten too ridiculous. Bands like Yes and Pink Floyd and all this kind of crap was just so far away from rock n roll. It’s like, What about rock ‘n’ roll? Pink Floyd is not rock ‘n’ roll! It’s some bullshit! So punk rock was about taking rock ‘n’ roll and bringing it to a point where you could have some fun. Do you have any idea why “Indian Summer” became the big Beat Happening song? Yeah – what’s the big deal? It’s a good song, but there’s so many good songs. Why pick that one. I haven’t the vaguest idea. I think “Foggy Eyes” is an amazing song – I don’t know why more people don’t cover that one. Beat Happening was not alone among ‘80s indie groups in having a woman in the band. Was that important for the band’s mission or did it just happen accidentally? I always feel like you should work with the best. So it just happened that the best was Heather Lewis. She’s a woman. Just working with the people it made sense to work with. Does it change the dynamic of the band? You’ve probably been in bands that were all guys. I’d always worked with women. It wasn’t until I was in the Halo Benders that I was in an all-male band. Before that I’d always had women in the band. How much do you listen to new music these days? It’s all I do. What’s some of the stuff you like? Does new music excite you the way it used to? Music’s great – people are always coming up with something interesting. I like Priests – they’re from D.C…. This band from L.A. I like, Dream Boys. Secret Cat, from Northern California. We played a show with then last year; I like them a lot. Ghosty, from Portland, is really great. So many great bands, music, people. There’s a band called Valet, from Portland, just put out an album called “Nature.” Sounds like you’re still pretty curious about what’s happening these days. What’s next for you? I’ve got a new album, under the name Selector Dub Narcotic. It’s called “This Party is Just Getting Started.”
November 24, 2015
Mother of Muslim American 9/11 first responder rebukes Donald Trump: “Maybe it is time for him to go back to Germany and advocate his pro-Nazi policies over there”
The mother of a Muslim American NYPD cadet who was killed working to rescue New Yorkers on 9/11 has a direct message to Donald Trump: Take your "pro-Nazi policies" back to the land of your German immigrant grandparents. Talat Hamdani, who lost her 23-year-old son, Mohammad Salman on 9/11, said in an interview on “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” on Tuesday that her son would have been "bemused" by Trump's latest antics but that "he would not have agreed because this is so unAmerican." In recent days, Trump has called for a the ongoing surveillance of Muslims in America, claimed to have witnessed "thousands" of Muslims openly cheering on 9/11, and entertained the idea of forcing all Muslims in America to carry a specialized id. "As a child growing up, he did have to face this discrimination in the fourth grade," Hamdani explained, retelling the story of her Muslim American son being taunted in a Catholic school until a teacher assigned the students to find a Quran for a lesson on world religions. "So this is where we stand, now, as a nation. What Salman had, you know, experienced in the fourth grade, our nation needs to be taught now, tolerance, multifaith -- through multifaith events, tolerance and assimilation and integration, instead of talking of fear, like Donald Trump and so many other presidential candidates are doing right now, at the expense of our tragedy. We who have buried our children." Hamadani said that such rhetoric disqualifies a candidate for higher office. "If you are running for a presidential position, you are taking an oath to uphold the constitution but here you are, you are going to violate the constitution." Hamdani also wrote a New York Daily News op-ed on Monday, calling out Trump for "advocat[ing] for policies with ugly precedents":
[A]cross America today, we are witnessing the spectacle of politicians crassly exploiting the tragedies of Paris, Beirut and Russia for selfish political gains. Capitalizing on fear and the considerable ignorance about the Muslim faith among many of our citizens, they are in a rush to the bottom, driving a stampede of prejudicial proposals. Quite the opposite of supporting their fellow Americans in a moment of crisis as my son did, many apparently see political gain to be had in selectively denying American Muslims their rights. If that weren’t ugly enough, many are equally ready to turn their backs on the finest American tradition of welcoming refugees fleeing violence, persecution and war. Perhaps the worst of all is Donald Trump’s recent openness to the idea of having all Muslims registered in a database, along with his suggestion that it might be necessary to shut down mosques and force all who share my faith to carry a special ID card. This is not some fringe candidate; it is the Republican Party’s undisputed front-runner. When others pushed back against these proposals for their obvious parallels to pre-war Nazi Germany, Trump did not back down. Instead, he further claimed this weekend that “thousands” of New Jersey Muslims cheered as the Twin Towers fell. He used this blatant lie to suggest the NYPD renew its spying program on local New York and New Jersey Muslims. Let’s be clear here: By making such horrendous suggestions, Trump is generating fear and advocating hatred and violence against Muslims.On MSNBC, Hamdai pointed out that Trump's grandparents had immigrated to the U.S. from Germany before suggesting, "maybe it is time for him to go back to Germany and advocate his pro-Nazi policies over there": The mother of a Muslim American NYPD cadet who was killed working to rescue New Yorkers on 9/11 has a direct message to Donald Trump: Take your "pro-Nazi policies" back to the land of your German immigrant grandparents. Talat Hamdani, who lost her 23-year-old son, Mohammad Salman on 9/11, said in an interview on “MSNBC Live with Thomas Roberts” on Tuesday that her son would have been "bemused" by Trump's latest antics but that "he would not have agreed because this is so unAmerican." In recent days, Trump has called for a the ongoing surveillance of Muslims in America, claimed to have witnessed "thousands" of Muslims openly cheering on 9/11, and entertained the idea of forcing all Muslims in America to carry a specialized id. "As a child growing up, he did have to face this discrimination in the fourth grade," Hamdani explained, retelling the story of her Muslim American son being taunted in a Catholic school until a teacher assigned the students to find a Quran for a lesson on world religions. "So this is where we stand, now, as a nation. What Salman had, you know, experienced in the fourth grade, our nation needs to be taught now, tolerance, multifaith -- through multifaith events, tolerance and assimilation and integration, instead of talking of fear, like Donald Trump and so many other presidential candidates are doing right now, at the expense of our tragedy. We who have buried our children." Hamadani said that such rhetoric disqualifies a candidate for higher office. "If you are running for a presidential position, you are taking an oath to uphold the constitution but here you are, you are going to violate the constitution." Hamdani also wrote a New York Daily News op-ed on Monday, calling out Trump for "advocat[ing] for policies with ugly precedents":
[A]cross America today, we are witnessing the spectacle of politicians crassly exploiting the tragedies of Paris, Beirut and Russia for selfish political gains. Capitalizing on fear and the considerable ignorance about the Muslim faith among many of our citizens, they are in a rush to the bottom, driving a stampede of prejudicial proposals. Quite the opposite of supporting their fellow Americans in a moment of crisis as my son did, many apparently see political gain to be had in selectively denying American Muslims their rights. If that weren’t ugly enough, many are equally ready to turn their backs on the finest American tradition of welcoming refugees fleeing violence, persecution and war. Perhaps the worst of all is Donald Trump’s recent openness to the idea of having all Muslims registered in a database, along with his suggestion that it might be necessary to shut down mosques and force all who share my faith to carry a special ID card. This is not some fringe candidate; it is the Republican Party’s undisputed front-runner. When others pushed back against these proposals for their obvious parallels to pre-war Nazi Germany, Trump did not back down. Instead, he further claimed this weekend that “thousands” of New Jersey Muslims cheered as the Twin Towers fell. He used this blatant lie to suggest the NYPD renew its spying program on local New York and New Jersey Muslims. Let’s be clear here: By making such horrendous suggestions, Trump is generating fear and advocating hatred and violence against Muslims.On MSNBC, Hamdai pointed out that Trump's grandparents had immigrated to the U.S. from Germany before suggesting, "maybe it is time for him to go back to Germany and advocate his pro-Nazi policies over there":
Trevor Noah’s just not funny: “The Daily Show” is a trainwreck — I know, because I watch for a living
I watch comedy shows for a living. My job is to cover what happens overnight while the rest of you are asleep. I watch everything -- Fallon, Colbert and Conan, but even the later shows like Seth Meyers and James Corden. On Comedy Central, that means my nerd crushes like Larry Wilmore and Chris Hardwick, and also the new "Daily Show With Trevor Noah" that began in September of this year. When I write up the morning clip, most times I try to make you laugh before you even watch the video. With people like Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers and Chris Hardwick, that isn't difficult. Many times with the new "Daily Show" I find myself throwing in a few extra jokes to try to boost the funny. Yeah, the new "Daily Show" is so deadly that I have to do what I can to punch up the jokes. I'm not the only one who senses that something is lacking. Since Noah's takeover, "The Daily Show's" ratings have fallen like a drunk heckler slipping on watermelon guts at a Gallagher show. Nielsen stats show a 37 percent drop overall. However, there has been an increase in the coveted 18-to-24 demographic by 20 percent, and on-demand streaming (presumably from younger online viewers) has increased by 44 percent. All viewers, young and older, certainly appreciate Noah's impressive good looks, dazzling dimples and beaming smile. But the type of comedy to which loyal "Daily Show" watchers have become accustomed is drastically different. Jon Stewart has a kind of physical comedy you saw from greats like Robin Williams, Dick van Dyke or Lucille Ball. Noah's comedy is all in what he says or occasionally how he says it. In the final month of the "Daily Show," the website did a series of videos remembering the 16 years of Stewart. One included clips of unbelievable accents. Another was a collection of his impressions from Sen. Mitch McConnell (a kind Cecil the Turtle from the old Looney Tunes cartoons), Sen. Lindsey Graham, a squinty-eyed George W. Bush with an evil laugh, and the odd gangster-squawk of Dick Cheney. But by far the best was an example of the years of physical shtick:
Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows
He even did an entire segment where he didn't say a word and used sounds and gestures along with the graphics to comment on Mike Huckabee. It was Stewart's 13-minute impression of Glenn Beck that took the show beyond mockery to sheer genius. After that, the "Daily Show" flew into the stratosphere of fans and will forever lead the annals of comedy until God himself tells you about the time two Jews walked into a bar. Stewart's physical talent, silly voices and accents, self-deprecating humor and classic deadpan were the recipes for success to which the audience became accustomed. His "Daily Show" was like "Saturday Night Live," while Noah's is more like MadTV: well-written with good ideas, but burdened by clumsy attempts to emulate some previous idea of what funny should look like. For all of Noah's classical beauty, he seems too unsure of himself to let the gestures and silliness fly. It's as if he has impostor syndrome and won't try new things for fear of failure. Even his deadpan is off. For each time Stewart cracked up with hysterics, Noah breaks 50 times more, making him look amateurish. Comedic timing should feel as natural as slipping down a slide. Right now his jokes are plopping down the stairs like a piece of pizza being dragged by a rat. Add that to the newest crop of subpar correspondents who began when Stewart left and you've got a comedy meal that tastes as bland as "The Love Guru" or "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle." Not terrible, not worthless, but something you only watch on basic cable while you sweep the dust under the sofa or unclog the kitchen sink. Noah has the disadvantage of high expectations. Stewart and his team spent years perfecting the "Daily Show." He too wasn't amazing on the first day, but he was jumping rope and built it up to a crazy double-dutch display. Noah has no choice but to pace himself into the big show. So far it seems like he's just wrapped up in the rope.I watch comedy shows for a living. My job is to cover what happens overnight while the rest of you are asleep. I watch everything -- Fallon, Colbert and Conan, but even the later shows like Seth Meyers and James Corden. On Comedy Central, that means my nerd crushes like Larry Wilmore and Chris Hardwick, and also the new "Daily Show With Trevor Noah" that began in September of this year. When I write up the morning clip, most times I try to make you laugh before you even watch the video. With people like Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers and Chris Hardwick, that isn't difficult. Many times with the new "Daily Show" I find myself throwing in a few extra jokes to try to boost the funny. Yeah, the new "Daily Show" is so deadly that I have to do what I can to punch up the jokes. I'm not the only one who senses that something is lacking. Since Noah's takeover, "The Daily Show's" ratings have fallen like a drunk heckler slipping on watermelon guts at a Gallagher show. Nielsen stats show a 37 percent drop overall. However, there has been an increase in the coveted 18-to-24 demographic by 20 percent, and on-demand streaming (presumably from younger online viewers) has increased by 44 percent. All viewers, young and older, certainly appreciate Noah's impressive good looks, dazzling dimples and beaming smile. But the type of comedy to which loyal "Daily Show" watchers have become accustomed is drastically different. Jon Stewart has a kind of physical comedy you saw from greats like Robin Williams, Dick van Dyke or Lucille Ball. Noah's comedy is all in what he says or occasionally how he says it. In the final month of the "Daily Show," the website did a series of videos remembering the 16 years of Stewart. One included clips of unbelievable accents. Another was a collection of his impressions from Sen. Mitch McConnell (a kind Cecil the Turtle from the old Looney Tunes cartoons), Sen. Lindsey Graham, a squinty-eyed George W. Bush with an evil laugh, and the odd gangster-squawk of Dick Cheney. But by far the best was an example of the years of physical shtick:Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows
He even did an entire segment where he didn't say a word and used sounds and gestures along with the graphics to comment on Mike Huckabee. It was Stewart's 13-minute impression of Glenn Beck that took the show beyond mockery to sheer genius. After that, the "Daily Show" flew into the stratosphere of fans and will forever lead the annals of comedy until God himself tells you about the time two Jews walked into a bar. Stewart's physical talent, silly voices and accents, self-deprecating humor and classic deadpan were the recipes for success to which the audience became accustomed. His "Daily Show" was like "Saturday Night Live," while Noah's is more like MadTV: well-written with good ideas, but burdened by clumsy attempts to emulate some previous idea of what funny should look like. For all of Noah's classical beauty, he seems too unsure of himself to let the gestures and silliness fly. It's as if he has impostor syndrome and won't try new things for fear of failure. Even his deadpan is off. For each time Stewart cracked up with hysterics, Noah breaks 50 times more, making him look amateurish. Comedic timing should feel as natural as slipping down a slide. Right now his jokes are plopping down the stairs like a piece of pizza being dragged by a rat. Add that to the newest crop of subpar correspondents who began when Stewart left and you've got a comedy meal that tastes as bland as "The Love Guru" or "The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle." Not terrible, not worthless, but something you only watch on basic cable while you sweep the dust under the sofa or unclog the kitchen sink. Noah has the disadvantage of high expectations. Stewart and his team spent years perfecting the "Daily Show." He too wasn't amazing on the first day, but he was jumping rope and built it up to a crazy double-dutch display. Noah has no choice but to pace himself into the big show. So far it seems like he's just wrapped up in the rope.
This must-read essay lights a match, aims for the sexist book world: “Let us burn this motherf*cking system to the ground”
"Let us burn this motherf__king system to the ground," writes Claire Vaye Watkins, "and build something better." Readers of the world, get the torches and gasoline. In a gloriously righteous Tin House essay "On Pandering" that is likely already tearing its way through your social media feed this week, the author of "Battleborn" and "Gold Fame Citrus" explores her own personal history as a reader of male writers and watcher of, as she puts it, "boys doing stuff." Along the way, Watkins shares a telling anecdote of what happened when "The Rumpus" editor Stephen Elliott came to town while she was in grad school, acknowledges her "invisible cloak of white privilege," and admits, "The stunning truth is that I am asking, deep down, as I write, What would Philip Roth think of this? What would Jonathan Franzen think of this? When the answer is probably: nothing…. I wrote 'Battleborn' for white men, toward them. If you hold the book to a certain light, you’ll see it as an exercise in self-hazing, a product of working-class madness, the female strain. So, natural then that Battleborn was well-received by the white male lit establishment: it was written for them. The whole book’s a pander." And Watkins suggests, ultimately, that all of us shake out the "working miniature replica of the patriarchy" in our minds and "make our own canon filled with what we love to read, what speaks to us and challenges us and opens us up, wherein we can each determine our artistic lineages for ourselves, with curiosity and vigor, rather than trying to shoehorn ourselves into a canon ready made and gifted us by some white f__ks at Oxford." It's heady, crackling stuff. In addition to its own strengths, "On Pandering" makes an exquisite sibling to Saeed Jones' fantastic piece for Buzzfeed earlier this year, "Self-Portrait Of The Artist As Ungrateful Black Writer," and Rebecca Solnit's recent LitHub essay, "80 Books No Woman Should Read." In hers, Solnit masterfully eviscerates Esquire's absurd list, from a few years back, of books every man should read. "Should men read different books than women?" she asks. "In this list they shouldn’t even read books by women, except for one by Flannery O’Connor among 79 books by men." She then proceeds to trim the fat from the Esquire list, noting, for example, that "Norman Mailer and William Burroughs would go high up on my no-list, because there are so many writers we can read who didn’t stab or shoot their wives." And in the end, she states what so many of us, male and female, have simply internalized as readers, that "Even Moby-Dick, which I love, reminds me that a book without women is often said to be about humanity but a book with women in the foreground is a woman’s book." As the ever astute Jennifer Weiner writes in the Guardian this week, the problem isn't just limited to books that women write; there's a ghettoizing of books they read. Writing on critical scorn for lauded yet unforgivably successful recent novels, she notes, "And you, dear (female) reader, are ultimately the object of the Goldfinchers’ ire. The books you’ve insisted on making popular are bad ones: sentimental, mawkish and manipulative. You’re a dim bulb, a fumbling, rattle-grasping baby, unable to digest anything but the watered-down pablum that Tartt or Sebold or Yanagihira are serving; incapable, even, of correctly determining whether or not you liked what you read." I've thought a lot about this recent wealth of smart literary criticism lately. In a few months, I have a nonfiction book coming out, about my experience in a clinical trial. The word "science" even appears on the cover. Yet until I read Watkins' and Solnit's pieces, it honestly never once crossed my mind that there was anything unusual about the fact I'd just assumed men won't read it. I'm a woman; I'm a mother; my book contains a lot of scenes of crying. I didn't bother to ask any men to blurb it; I was mildly apologetic when I asked a few trusted male friends just to read it. I realize that sounds a little casually sexist of me. And my evidence suggests that men read do books by women. Just last week, I went to an event in which "Blackout" author Sarah Hepola talked about her drinking memoir, and having male readers come up to her and say, "You told my story." I have sat on subway trains and spied men reading "Orange Is the New Black." But here's my point: I, a woman who writes about feminist issues on the daily, take for granted Solnit's observation that a book by a man will be greeted by the world as a book, and that a book by a woman — whatever the subject matter — will be greeted by the world as a genre work. I've got to do better, because stories about women are stories about people. Like Watkins and Solnit, I want things to change, one writer, one reader at a time. And I want to see a man on the subway, reading "Bridget Jones' Diary."
